Dismissed

Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC30 Jul 2012CWP/13222/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a fresh recruitment advertisement issued by the respondent Institute after an initial one was published, alleging arbitrariness. The petitioner claimed prior experience made him eligible. The Court held the petitioner was ineligible even under the original advertisement's requirement of five years' experience and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ashwani Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Others — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C.W.P. No. 13222 of 2012 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P. No. 13222 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.7.2012

Ashwani Kumar

.. Petitioner

State of Punjab and another

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. M. S. Kang, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satish Bhanot, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No. 1.

¶11

Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶12

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶13

The petitioner has approached this court with a grievance that though in the advertisement issued on 23.6.2012 for recruitment to the posts of Technicians in Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology, qualification of three years diploma course was mentioned and the petitioner being eligible for the same had even appeared for interview on 9.7.2012, but still without declaring the result thereof, on 10.7.2012 a fresh advertisement was issued changing the qualifications, which could not be permitted.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was, in fact, already working with the respondent-Institute for the last three years. He was fully eligible as per the Rules. Once in the advertisement, certain qualifications had been mentioned and the petitioner was eligible in terms thereof, he should have been considered and appointed considering his past experience in the Institute itself. Still arbitrarily the respondentInstitute instead of declaring the result had issued a fresh advertisement changing the qualifications, which is totally illegal.

¶15

C.W.P. No. 13222 of 2012 [2]

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Institute submitted that amendment pertaining to the qualifications for the post had, in fact, been carried out in the meeting of the Board of Management held on 24.3.2012, in terms of which the recruitment rules as prescribed by UGC/AICTE/MHRD, whichever were better, were adopted. The fresh advertisement issued was strictly in consonance with the amended rules. The action cannot be said to be arbitrary. He further submitted that even as per the advertisement already issued in terms of which the petitioner is claiming appointment, he was not eligible. It required experience of five years in grade pay of ` 2,400/-. The petitioner only had experience of three years.

¶17

In response to the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the conditions laid down in the advertisement already issued, the requirement was three years diploma course or equivalent in the relevant trade of Engineering/Technology with professional/industrial experience of five years in grade pay of ` 2,400/-. In fact, the experience was required only where the qualification was equivalent to three years diploma course.

¶18

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding experience is totally misconceived. The requisite qualifications and experience have been clearly provided. As far as qualification is concerned, it was required that the candidate should have three years diploma course or equivalent in the relevant trade of Engineering/Technology, whereas the experience required was five years in grade pay of 2,400/- and 10 years in grade pay of 1,900/- in the relevant field. As the petitioner was not eligible even as per the advertisement issued earlier, I do not find any reason to interfere in the present petition.

¶19

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶20

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

¶21

30.7.2012 mk

Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harleen Walia @ Rubla Vs State of Punjab

Sarabjit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harpreet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sanjay Balayan Vs Food Corporation of India and Others

Vijay Kumar Thapa Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Shashi Pal Puri and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.